|
|
| |
| To
Obey or Not to Obey |
|
|
| |
Sophie
Rhys-Jones did but Posh Spice didn't. The Church of Scotland and
the Catholic Church don't even ask the question. We offer our view
on including 'to obey' in your Church of England wedding vows
Sophie's decision to 'obey' her new husband opened up a can of worms
that has elicited much debate, with the church offering a rather
vague interpretation of its meaning, suggesting that it actually
means to trust, and the feminists raising their arms in horror at
a modern, independent woman submitting to the directorship of her
husband. But what does it really mean to the brides of today?
The
origins of the word obey can be traced back to the Latin dictionary
and means "to listen deeply," while the Oxford dictionary
defines it as to "do what one is told." But what does
it really mean when included in the marriage vows? The origin of
the wedding vows used in Anglican services can be traced back to
the Middle Ages to the Book of Common Prayer, which was approved
by Henry VIII. Henry's approval must raise some doubt about the
integrity of the marriage vows as more than anyone in history he
is infamous for flouting his vows. Thankfully, today a beheading
is not the result of a wife's disobedience.
Biblical references to the implications of marriage vows are also
ambiguous. Paul, in a letter to the church in Ephesus, directed
that it was necessary for "wives to submit to their husbands
as to the Lord" (Ephesians 5:22). But while this sounds very
much like typical male domination he also instructed everyone, male
and female to "submit to one another," which suggests
a distinctly modern view of an equal partnership.
The
problem is that today we equate obedience with power and domination.
But in the Bible submission or obedience is more about outlooks
than individual rights. It is a desire to be unselfish and not
to demand our own way and does not infer that once married a woman
becomes a second-class citizen who relinquishes all of her rights.
Equally, it certainly does not give a husband the right to demand
that whatever he says goes. Rather it suggests a desire to accept
the other's wishes not out of subjection but willingly, because
of love.
The Rt Rev Peter Nott, Bishop of Norwich, who officiated at the
marriage of Prince Edward and Sophie Rhys-Jones, gives his own
if somewhat vague interpretation: "It is a
mistaken assumption that, when a bride says she will obey, it
means that she is going to be subservient - it is to do with trust
and listening, to recognise that in a family you have different
functions. There are times when the husband will rightly obey
the wife because she knows better and is in the lead in that area
- the partnership is equal and, in a good marriage, always shifts."
The Church of England offers couples a choice where they can both
promise to 'love and cherish' or alternatively, the groom promises
to 'love, cherish and worship' while the bride 'loves, cherishes
and obeys.' But when a bride and groom are considering their choice
of words they should take in to account the meaning of all of
the words they will be saying and it is worth noting that when
the groom promises to 'worship' it not only means giving total
respect and honour and going to any lengths for them but essentially
that he will remain faithful, an equally hard promise to keep.
However, the most important thing to be considered when deciding
on the marriage vows is that you are comfortable with what you
are saying and that it expresses your sentiments. Ultimately the
choice is yours
Essentially, the question must be asked that in a relationship,
which is considered to be an equal partnership why can't both
individuals promise to 'obey', and 'worship'. Clearly a more acceptable
alternative would be for the vows to be the same for men and women.
Why shouldn't a wife promise her husband the same honour respect
and faithfulness that he commits to her and, as the Rt Rev Peter
Nott suggests, surely a husband should obey his wife on the occasions
when she knows better, which as we know, is most of the time!
|